I am shocked to see such a biased and shallow article to be used as ‘Cover Leader’ for the Economist, an otherwise credible, responsible publication.

The article attempts to opine on the motivations and action of today’s China referencing 100 year-old historical events while totally ignoring the complexity of modern geopolitical and cultural realities. It reeks of naked passive aggressive fear mongering to cultivate anti-China sentiment.

The way China was discussed in the article is as if it was a person. Treating China as a one-dimensional entity is ignorant bordering racist. Saying Xi Jian-Ping (or any Chinese leaders after Deng Xiao-Ping for that matter) this and Xi Jian-Ping that is plain naïve, demonstrating a lack of understand of the how leaders are selected and groomed in China. Imagine keeping 1,300,000,000 people fed, housed, clothed, stable and even prospering is not a simple undertaking. To govern a country of such scale and complexity, with a young economy and budding judicial system, Western-style political system may not be feasible. China, like any other countries, has a system of how things work. At every point of decision-making many options are considered and weighed. All these decisions, from top to bottom, from one branch to another, from one region to the next, all contribute to what China is. There are debates, trade-offs, good results, mistakes, good officials, and corrupted officials; like everywhere else. China’s rise in the past 30 years was due to a clear collective vision, respect for what’s possible and reasonable, sensible prioritization of liberation moves, steely will power, as well as careful and elastic execution. Jabs about China such as “having a deep identity crisis” are totally baseless and petty.

If you want to know something, just ask. The article used almost exclusively references from Westerners: Matthew Boulton, George Macartney, Mark Elvin, Kenneth Pomeran, Lucien Pye, etc. But with China being a big, old country with complicated social, economical and political and religious fabric; and also given the language, cultural and geographic barriers for these ‘experts’ had, why were their observations or opinions the golden truth? Why wouldn’t the Economist ask or interview Chinese politician/scholars/experts and get direct answers?

The Chinese government at all levels face problems like all governments in the world. Is there social unrest in the US? Sure. Do the Quebecois want to go independent? Yes. Do we have corruption with the MPs in the UK? Definitely. What is the point of drilling on China’s needle in the eye but not the pillar in your own? I can see The Sun might do that, but the Economist? And most curiously, why was the article addressed to America? Is America and elected leader to the world? Is America all that good and righteous? Just ask the people in Cuba, Palestine, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and those in the inner cities and Hispanics inside America for opinion.

So my biggest problem with this essay is that the writers look at things only from the West’s perspective. The mention of China’s recent toughen foreign policy was painted with disdain. Accusing China of “over reacting” to the border disputes shows a complete pro-US bias. Be mindful that the border dispute of late has not been the neighboring countries complaining about China taking over their islands, but it was China who complained about her neighbors’ attempt or activity to occupy the islands. These small countries aggressiveness was a direct result of the re-pivot US foreign policy which gave them a behind the scene green-light to do so. Such covert tactics is not news from the Americans, so why should China not concern about it? Especially after what the world has witnessed in Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya? So it was okay for the US to exert itself all over the world but it’s not okay for China to defend its rights? Who gave the US right to have its navy half way across the world? How would the Americans have reacted had anyone’s navy is hovering outside its waters? So according to the Economist, how China, as the largest country on the planet and the second largest economy, should behave in light of all this?

For any argument to be taken seriously, neutrality is a must. This essay covered a rough history of China in a negative light; however how China has suffered the aggression from Western countries and Japan was not even mentioned. I saw much Chinese historical artifacts at the British Museum and the Met in New York, I have yet to see one piece of foreign loot in all the museums I visited in Beijing and Shanghai. So what does China want? It wants not to be treated like they had been in the past 100 years, and to be truly understood and accepted as what they are today, not the mysterious Chinatown cliché that are portrayed in the 60s Hollywood movies.